Heroin choice depends on income level and economy type

Cocaine and heroin interact differently with nondrug reinforcers in a choice situation

The present study used a rat choice model to test how cocaine or heroin economically interacted with two different nondrug reinforcers along the substitute-to-complement continuum. In Experiment 1, the nondrug alternative was the negative reinforcer timeout-from-avoidance (TOA)-that is, rats could press a lever to obtain a period of safety from footshock. One group of rats chose between cocaine and TOA and another group chose between heroin and TOA. The relative prices of the reinforcers were manipulated across phases while controlling for potential income effects. When cocaine was the reinforcer, rats reacted to price changes by increasing their allocation of behavior to the more expensive option, thereby maintaining relatively proportional intake of cocaine and TOA reinforcers across prices, suggesting these reinforcers were complements here. In contrast, when heroin became relatively cheap, rats increased allocation of income to heroin and decreased allocation of income to TOA, suggesting that heroin substituted for safety. Additionally, rats were willing to accept more footshocks when heroin was easily available. In Experiment 2, the nondrug alternative was saccharin, a positive reinforcer. Heroin and saccharin were complements, but there was no consistent effect of price changes on the allocation of behavior between cocaine and saccharin. As a model of the processes that could be involved in human drug use, these results show that drug-taking behavior depends on the type of drug, the type of nondrug alternative available, and the prices of both. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The essential value of the alternatives of the suboptimal choice procedure is different for pigeons and rats

Suboptimal choice is the preference for a discriminative alternative with low probability of reinforcement, over a non-discriminative alternative with higher probability of reinforcement. Pigeons consistently prefer the discriminative alternative, whereas rats prefer the non-discriminative; the variables accounting for this difference are not yet clear. The economic concepts related to demand curves have been used to calculate the essential value of different types of reinforcers, so they may be useful to compare the value of the alternatives in the suboptimal choice procedure. The goal of this study was to calculate the essential value of each of the alternatives presented in the suboptimal choice procedure to assess if pigeons (Experiment 1) and rats (Experiment 2) value them differently. In both experiments, the fixed ratio requirement in the initial link was increased throughout sessions in order to obtain the demand curve and calculate the essential value by fitting the exponential-demand model. A Bayesian Linear Mixed-Effects Model indicated that pigeons had higher essential values for the discriminative alternative, whereas rats obtained higher essential values for the non-discriminative alternative. These results suggest that preferences in the suboptimal choice procedure are indeed based on the essential value of the alternatives, and provide a new paradigm to study the variables affecting this phenomenon.